The Creation of the Universe

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The Scientific Law Of Causality necessitates acknowledgment of a Divine Creator:

Indisputably, the most universal, and the most certain, of all scientific laws is the law of cause and effect, or as it is commonly known, the law (or principle) of causality. Scientists, and philosophers of science, recognize laws as “reflecting actual regularities in nature” (Hull, 1974, p. 3). So far as scientific testing and historical experience can attest, laws know no exceptions. And this certainly is true of the law of causality. This law has been stated in a variety of ways, each of which adequately expresses its ultimate meaning. Kant, in the first edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, stated that “everything that happens (begins to be) presupposes something which it follows according to a rule.” In the second edition, he strengthened that statement by noting that “all changes take place according to the law of connection of cause and effect” (see Meiklejohn, 1878, p. 141). Schopenhauer stated the proposition as, “Nothing happens without a reason why it should happen rather than not happen” (see von Mises, 1951, p. 159). The number of examples of various formulations could be expanded almost indefinitely. But simply put, the law of causality states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause....

Scientists and philosophers alike understand that the Universe must have had a cause. They understand that this cause had to precede the Universe, and be superior to it in every way. Admittedly, there is no natural cause sufficient to explain the origin of matter, and thus the Universe, as Jastrow candidly admits. This presents a very real problem, however. R.L. Wysong commented on this problem as follows:

Everyone concludes naturally and comfortably that highly ordered and designed items (machines, houses, etc.) owe existence to a designer. It is unnatural to conclude otherwise. But evolution asks us to break stride from what is natural to believe and then believe in that which is unnatural, unreasonable, and...unbelievable. We are told by some that all of reality—the universe, life, etc.—is without an initial cause. But, since the universe operates by cause and effect relationships, how can it be argued from science—which is a study of that very universe—that the universe is without an initial cause?....

Although critics have railed against, and evolutionists have ignored, the law of cause and effect, it stands unassailed. Its central message remains intact: every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. Life in our magnificent Universe is here; intelligence is here; morality is here; love is here. What is their ultimate cause? Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence which Itself is both moral and loving. When the Bible records, “In the beginning, God...,” it makes known to us just such a First Cause.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2005

The Creation of Light

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Biblical Space-Time Dilation better explains the observed universe than does the Big Bang:

An experimentally verified prediction of Einstein’s General Relativity Theory is a phenomenon called gravitational time dilation. It has long been established that gravity affects the rate at which time flows in any particular location in the universe. A graphic example of this phenomenon is the GPS satellite navigation system which is becoming a standard feature in many motor vehicles today....

Another mechanism for time dilation is rapid acceleration of the fabric of space in an expanding universe. This is explained more fully in Hartnett’s book referenced above....

In at least 11 places, the Scriptures speak of God ‘stretching out the heavens’ (e.g. Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22 and 42:5, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1) and in Genesis 1:15 the words ‘And it was so.’ are recorded in connection with the events of Day 4 of Creation Week, implying the completion of the events described on that Day. It is a reasonable conclusion to draw that God stretched out the heavens to the vast extent of the observable universe in just one 24 hour day and then ceased the action of ‘stretching out’. This is more rational than the inflation fudge of big bangers discussed above. That is, where the universe just happened to expand much faster than light, although there is no known physical cause for starting or stopping this superluminal expansion....

By the end of Day 4, when God completed his work of creating the sun, moon and stars, and had stretched out the heavens to their vast extent, billions of years of cosmic time could have elapsed at the outer edges of the cosmos in just one 24 hour earth day. There would have been more than enough time for the light from distant stars to have reached the earth so that when Adam gazed at the night sky on that sixth night he would have seen much the same as what we see today.

http://creation.com/how-can-distant-starlight-reach-us-in-just-6000-years

The Creation of the Firmament

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The decay of the Earth's magnetic field strength proves that the Earth cannot be more than 100,000 years old:

The average "intensity" of the earth's magnetic field has decreased exponentially by about 7% since its first careful measurement in 1829.[1] The field's intensity includes components of strength and direction and tells us the amount of force turning a compass needle northward. By estimating the field intensity everywhere (in, on, and above the earth), we can calculate the total electrical "energy" stored in the field. Such calculations show that the total energy in the field has decreased by about 14% since 1829....

"Archaeomagnetism" is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists. Iron oxides in those objects retain a record of the strength and direction of the earth's magnetic field at the time they last cooled to normal temperatures. Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth's magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then.[7]

Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today....

The precise age limits above depend not only on the dynamic decay theory, but also on the theory of planetary magnetic-field origins. However, we can still set a rough maximum to the initial energy from basic physical considerations, as Dr. Barnes has done.[2] Such a maximum would limit the age to roughly 10,000 years.

It is also possible that a small percentage of today's energy decay is not free decay, due to the core's electrical resistance; but rather is dynamic decay, due to residual motions in the core fluid. In that case, the resistance of the core would be less, and the maximum age of the field would be greater. But even in this extreme case, the maximum age would still be only about 100,000 years, far short of the billions of years evolution needs.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=371

The presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds proves that the Earth cannot be more than 100,000 years old:

Carbon 14 has a half life of only 5,730 years. This means an object 5,730 years old should have only half the amount of carbon 14 in ratio to carbon 12 as a new object.

Any object that is older than twenty carbon 14 half lives should not have any detectable carbon 14. In other words, since carbon 14′s half life is 5,730 years, twenty half lives would be 114,600 years and there should be no detectable carbon 14 in a sample that old.

The RATE group tested ten samples of coal which it obtained from the US Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. The ten samples were of coal taken from coalfields all across the United States. The samples represented a wide range of standard time frames in the geologic column including the Cenozoic, Mesozoic and Paleozoic.

The coal samples were considered to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old by traditional old earth standards. However, in direct contradiction to the standard old earth timeframe, all ten samples of coal had significant levels of detectable carbon 14.

The fact that carbon 14 was detected in every sample of coal clearly shows that the standard old earth estimates for the age of coal are wrong by several orders of magnitude.

http://www.articlestoreprint.net/article_321282_carbon-14-in-all-coal-and-diamonds-proves-young-earth.htm

Consider that in recent years “readily detectable amounts of carbon-14” in materials evolutionists suppose are millions of years old “have been the rule rather than the exception” (DeYoung, 2005, p. 49). When geophysicist John Baumgardner and colleagues obtained 10 coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, one of the leading radiocarbon laboratories in the world tested the samples for traces of carbon. The coal samples were analyzed using the modern accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method. If the coal were really many millions of years old (as evolutionists suggest), no traces of carbon-14 should have been found. “[A]ny carbon-containing materials that are truly older than 100,000 years should be ‘carbon-14 dead’ with C-14 levels below detection limits” (DeYoung, p. 49). But, in fact, traces of carbon-14 were found. “[A] residue of carbon-14 atoms was found in all ten samples.... The amounts of C-14 in coal are found to average 0.25 percent of that in the atmosphere today” (DeYoung, p. 53). Diamonds assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old were also tested—12 in all. Once again, traces of C-14 were found in every sample (see DeYoung, pp. 45-62).

http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/3469

The Creation of Life

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Evolution contradicts the Scientific Law of Biogenesis:

In the field of biology, one of the most commonly accepted and widely used laws of science is the law of biogenesis. This law was set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experimental evidence showed to be true among living organisms—that life comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reproducing only its own kind or type. As David Kirk correctly stated: “By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent” (1975, p. 7)....

Down through the years, countless thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the law of biogenesis as just that — a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life and that of its kind. Interestingly, the law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories....

R.L. Wysong, in his classic work, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, commented:

The creationist is quick to remind evolutionists that biopoiesis and evolution describe events that stand in stark naked contradiction to an established law. The law of biogenesis says life arises only from preexisting life, biopoiesis says life sprang from dead chemicals; evolution states that life forms give rise to new, improved and different life forms, the law of biogenesis says that kinds only reproduce their own kinds.

Why, then, are we suddenly being told that, in regard to biogenesis, the word “law” no longer applies? It did in the nineteenth century. Has it been disproven? On the contrary, every piece of scientific evidence still supports the basic concept that life arises only from preexisting life. Is biogenesis no longer an “actual regularity in nature”? On the contrary, every piece of scientific information we possess shows that it is, in fact, just that — an actual regularity in nature (remember Dr. Simpson’s statement that “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life...”). Has biogenesis somehow ceased being experimentally reproducible? Not at all. Why, then, does the evolutionist wish us to refrain from calling the law a law? The answer, it would seem, is obvious. If evolutionists accept biogenesis as a law — an actual regularity in nature — how could evolution ever get started? Biogenesis (the law of biogenesis) would represent the complete undoing of evolutionary theory from the ground floor up.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004

The Creation of the Stars and Planets

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The low angular momentum of the Sun disproves theories of materialistic origin and suggests an Intelligent Design:

What are some of the difficulties with the Modified Nebula Hypothesis? One long-standing problem is with angular momentum. Any object in motion around the Sun has angular momentum and the spin of the object itself gives it additional angular momentum. If our Sun formed according to the Nebula Hypothesis, it would spin more and more rapidly as it contracted and the result would be a very rapidly spinning Sun. But, in our solar system we observe that the Sun spins very slowly and the planets move around the Sun relatively quickly. Our Sun makes one rotation on its axis, measured at its equator, in 24 days, 16 hours (Baugher, 1988, p.415). This slow rotation means the Sun possesses only about 2 percent of the total angular momentum of the solar system (Baugher, 1988, p.375). So the distribution of angular momentum doesn't fit the Nebula models well. In order to make it work, scientists have suggested magnetic processes that would slow down the Sun and accelerate the matter that became the planets. This is a very difficult problem for solar system theories. Since this problem has been worked on for years, one would think that it had been solved. But, a well known solar system scientist wrote that, “The ultimate origin of the angular momentum of the solar system remains obscure” (Taylor,1992, p.53).

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/SpencerSolarSystem.pdf

The recession of the Lunar orbit proves a young age for the Earth:

Friction by the tides is slowing the earth’s rotation, so the length of a day is increasing by 0.002 seconds per century. This means that the earth is losing angular momentum. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum says that the angular momentum the earth loses must be gained by the moon. Thus the moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm (1½ inches) per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km (11,500 miles), known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces (i.e., the result of different gravitational forces on different parts of the moon) would have shattered it. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. (This is the maximum possible age—far too young for evolution, and much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks – not the actual age.)

http://www.trueorigin.org/moonjs.asp

The Creation of Animal Life

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The discovery of undecayed and biochemically “live” soft tissue within dinosaur bones proves that animal life was created less than 30,000 years ago:

Secondly, in May of this year, a team of paleontologists led by Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University completed their laboratory testing and DNA sequencing of intact, unfossilized soft tissue recovered from various dinosaur bone marrow samples. Dr. Schweitzer caused quite a stir in 2005 when she reported the discovery of the first of these soft tissues inside an allegedly 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex femur, as it is universally acknowledged that unfossilized soft tissue cannot survive for more than a maximum of 100,000 years.(2)

Obviously, you don't have to have an advanced degree in biology to understand the problem this creates for evolutionists -- put simply, dead meat rots away, in a lot less time than tens of millions of years. Intent upon explaining away these inconvenient facts, many evolutionists resorted to the claim that these tissues were nothing more than "biofilms": biological muck which had seeped into the dinosaur bones since their time of deposition. However, the recent completion of multiple, independent laboratory tests upon the Tyrannosaur and Hadrosaur tissues in question has blown away this flimsy objection -- confirming not only that the soft tissue in question is original saurian bone marrow, but also confirming the presence of collagen protein within some of the tissues. Now, collagen protein begins to break down within weeks of the death of an organism, and even if hermetically sealed will completely break down due to simple thermodynamic effects within a maximum of 30,000 years.(3) Yet not only has intact, undecayed collagen protein been discovered within the soft tissues under study, but some of the cell samples recently recovered from allegedly 120-million-year-old Iguanodon bone marrow were still chemically "live" enough to produce an immune reaction!(4)

Unlike the Theory of Evolution (which has never been provably observed, tested, or reproduced in a laboratory), the breakdown of proteins in a dead organism is a known, measurable fact. So given that we now know, as a proven fact, that it is chemically impossible for these dinosaur bones to be more than 30,000 years old -- well, the only logical conclusion is that they aren't more than 30,000 years old! Furthermore, if the iron laws of chemistry tell us that these dinosaurs must have existed upon the earth within the last 30,000 years (rather than tens of millions of years ago, as claimed by evolutionists), then that leaves only one rational explanation for their presence: Recent Creation by an Intelligent Designer.

And, unlike the evolutionists, the creationists have the cold, hard facts to prove it.

http://libertariantheonomy.blogspot.com/2010/01/when-truth-is-forbidden.html

The Creation of Man

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The observed rate of mitochondrial DNA mutations proves an age of approximately 6000 years for the human race:

Age estimates are obtained by observing differences between the DNA of different individuals, and are calculated using estimates of mutation rates. Mitochondrial DNA is often used for this; it is separate from the bulk of the human DNA, which is found in the cell nucleus. Mitochondrial DNA has about 16,000 base pairs and mutates, apparently, much faster than the nuclear DNA. Human mitochondrial DNA has been completely mapped, and all the coding regions are known, and the proteins or RNA for which they code. Some of the mitochondrial DNA does not code for anything, and is known as a control region. This region appears to mutate faster than any other region, because the variation among humans is greatest here.

Recently, mitochondrial DNA mutation rates were measured directly (Parsons, Thomas J., et al., A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region, Nature Genetics vol. 15, April 1997, pp. 363-367). The mutation rate in a segment of the control region of mitochondrial DNA was directly measured by comparing mitochondrial DNA from siblings and from parents and their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA was found to mutate about 20 times faster than previously thought, at a rate of one mutation (substitution) every 33 generations, approximately. In this section of the control region, which has about 610 base pairs, humans typically differ from one another by about 18 mutations. By simple mathematics, it follows that the human race is about 300 generations old. If one assumes a typical generation is about 20 years, this gives an age of about 6000 years.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html

The rate of deleterious mutation in the human race proves that the human race cannot have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years (we would have already gone extinct):

A recent study examined the mutation rate for humans. Using "conservative assumptions" the authors found that the overall mutation rates was 4.2 mutations per person per generation, with a deleterious rate of 1.6. When using more realistic assumptions the overall mutation rate for humans become 6.7 with a deleterious rate of 3.1. Such a high rate should have resulted in extinction of our species long ago. They stated in their conclusion:

"The deleterious mutation rate appears to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species, which have low reproductive rates, could survive if mutational effects on fitness were to combine in a multiplicative way."

The authors must rely upon a rare association of mutations, termed synergistic epistasis to explain why the numerous hypothesized deleterious mutations have not overwhelmed our genome. Instead of postulating the obvious (that the human genome is not as old as evolution would teach), evolutionists again are relying upon the improbable to retain the evolutionary paradigm.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evol1999.html#Deleterious%20mutation%20rate